French digital minister says "it’s like cutting off someone’s water.”

France finally put an end to the most extreme measure of its famous “three strikes” anti-piracy regime: no one will face being cut off from the Internet.

The law is better known by its French acronym, Hadopi. In the last few years under the law, the Hadopi agency famously set up a system with graduating levels of warnings and fines. The threat of being cut off entirely from the Internet was the highest degree, but that penalty was never actually put into place.

“Getting rid of the cut-offs and those damned winged elephants is a good thing. They're very costly,” Joe McNamee, of European Digital Rights, quipped to Ars.

Hadopi has served as an inspiration to many other anti-piracy crusaders around the world, including the “six strikes” system here in the United States that debuted earlier this year. But despite sending out more than a million warning e-mails across France, only one case ever made it to all three strikes. The result? Last year, a 40-year-old Frenchman paid €150 ($194) for failing to secure his Internet (presumably Wi-Fi) connection and for ignoring the three warnings sent by the Hadopi agency. This ruling was made despite the fact that his soon-to-be-ex-wife admitted in court that she was the one who pirated two Rihanna songs. (In an amazing bit of irony, the man took his entire household offline after receiving the first two warnings.)

“Today it’s not possible to cut off someone’s Internet access,” said Fleur Pellerin, France’s digital minister. She spoke at a press event (Google Translate) in Sweden last week, confirming that at least this part of the law would go away. “It’s like cutting off someone’s water.”

For now, Pellerin’s declaration seems to be the only concrete result stemming from a two-volume government document published just a few weeks ago. The Lescure Report (with more than 600 pages) provides substantial analysis and recommendations for the future of Hadopi and digital policy in France.

Cultural Exception

Two other notable recommendations came out of the Lescure Report. First, the analysis suggests the administration of the law should move from the Hadopi agency (to be dissolved) to the French media regulator, the Superior Audiovisual Council (CSA).

The second major recommendation was that the French government should impose a one percent tax on all “connected devices” (smartphones, tablets, computers). Currently, France has a similar law on blank media (DVDs, CDs, cassettes, memory cards, USB sticks, and other related devices).

The French online magazine Rue89 is unimpressed (Google Translate) with the changes: “Despite the disappearance of the Hadopi institution, its spirit will persist. The imagined reasoning stays by monitoring watched or listened-to content by Internet users. It’s just the controller that’s changing.”

According to Le Monde (Google Translate), this proposed new one percent tax would raise around €86 million ($111 million) annually. What would it be used for?

The Lescure Report argues: “The tax would be used to encourage and accompany the digital transition of cultural industries, through helping digital creation and digital promotion of works of art, digitizing back catalogs, to the development of metadata databases and of cultural digital innovative services and providers of cultural diversity. All of the creative sectors will benefit from these [financial] interventions. In any case, the mission proposes to focus on the sectors most-affected by digital shock: music and photography.”

Under the government of President François Hollande, the future of the agency (and its broader mission) has been in question while funding has been cut.

Last year, during his election campaign, Hollande said that he wanted to replace Hadopi with something he called "Act 2 of the Cultural Exception." That's a reference to a 20-year-old provision France successfully inserted into the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which allows cultural products such as art, music, film, and literature to be treated differently from other commercial products. Effectively, the "cultural exception" makes it legal for France to maintain its system of quotas and subsidies for its domestic cultural industry.

So the new report’s official title reflects that goal: “Mission: ‘Act 2 of the Cultural Exception.’” But again, it's commonly referred to as the Lescure Report, named for its primary author, Pierre Lescure, who is former head of Canal Plus, a major French satellite TV network.

The French seem...unrealistically... optimistic about actually being able to turn cash into 'culture', rather than merely padding the margins of whatever incumbent rightsholders are best at whining.

In fairness, it's hardly an easy problem, 'culture' often ends up being stuff that is only recognized after its production(sometimes long after), so incentives aimed at already-evident culture are likely to wind up as some combination of pure margin-padding for media titans or slightly-less-crass-but-deeply-ossified-and-reactionary subsidy of dying culture that no longer has a following outside of obscurantists. Incentives aimed at producing new and innovative work are likely, unless very subtle indeed, to be trivial to game by pumping out qualifying schlock as cheaply as possible.

Obviously, the general "We should take money from the intertubes because Pirates!!" theory is a widespread thing; but I'm much more used to the property-rights based demands, rather than a theory that the state will actually be able to buy cultural production...

It's not clear - would that new 1% tax on connected devices be tied to an exclusion of enforcement actions against individual copyright infringement (i.e. non-commercial and not providing the material to infringe)?

Pretty typical. These efforts have a huge buildup (the six-strikes one spent years building up), which causes an explosion in file sharing when people are afraid they'll get cut off so they download as much as possible, and new people want to see what the fuss is about. Then there's a rollout, and someone is chosen to make an example of, in a high-profile media case. Then it just fades away. The end result is always more file sharing than there was before.

It's not clear - would that new 1% tax on connected devices be tied to an exclusion of enforcement actions against individual copyright infringement (i.e. non-commercial and not providing the material to infringe)?

Don't be silly. That's nowhere NEAR enough money to satisfy the content providers; and the tax on recording media hasn't lead to legalizing copying. Now, talk about a tax on every bit that flows down a wire, THEN they'll be happy.

It's not clear - would that new 1% tax on connected devices be tied to an exclusion of enforcement actions against individual copyright infringement (i.e. non-commercial and not providing the material to infringe)?

Don't be silly. That's nowhere NEAR enough money to satisfy the content providers; and the tax on recording media hasn't lead to legalizing copying. Now, talk about a tax on every bit that flows down a wire, THEN they'll be happy.

Every bit on the wire? That's short-sighted, they want a cut of every note of music you hear everywhere. The only reason you aren't being taxed for listening to shopping mall music or the whump whump of a passing car blasting dubstep from its speakers is that the RIAA is still developing the tech that will bill you for that public performance.

It's not clear - would that new 1% tax on connected devices be tied to an exclusion of enforcement actions against individual copyright infringement (i.e. non-commercial and not providing the material to infringe)?

Yeah, I've paid my 1% tax to the recording industry, I can copy what I like.....

I wonder if they'll start taxing all new industries to prop up the ones that they make redundant?

I do want to say my Peace as I am a very big hater of the MAFIAA but it seems like I getr Banned from here as a Troll.I love Ars but I am hating this Troll Banning probably all due to my MAFIAA Hate.I just got off a Ban on 6/2 and I am not a Troll.I am a real person "Jordan Kratz" and goreproductions is a real Website with my name, and I am also the next to oldest Punk Rocker in Maine.I am 57 and have been a Member of the Punk Community since 1976.And yes I so hate the MAFIAA and all the greed and control they stand for.I was Banned for "Trolling the Front Page" whatever that even means.I should make a Note and look back here to see if I actually get an explanation as to what that thing even means.

“Today it’s not possible to cut off someone’s Internet access,” said Fleur Pellerin, France’s digital minister. He spoke at a press event (Google Translate) in Sweden last week, confirming that at least this part of the law would go away. “It’s like cutting off someone’s water.”

Hum,just to point out but Fleur Pellerin is a woman not a man. With a name like "Flower" it is difficult to see how she can be any other than a woman.It is just annoying to see that kind of confusion (without inferring necessarily sexism).

“Today it’s not possible to cut off someone’s Internet access,” said Fleur Pellerin, France’s digital minister. He spoke at a press event (Google Translate) in Sweden last week, confirming that at least this part of the law would go away. “It’s like cutting off someone’s water.”

While I agree with the notion that cutting off someone's Internet connection is a very lame remedy almost guaranteed not to work (since there are so many obvious ways to get around it), equating Internet access to the body's need for water is rather idiotic--go without water for ~3 days and expire, go without Internet access for three days and...nothing--except maybe reading more books, watching movies and having more interaction with one's immediate environment, possibly. The year of the "Internet boom" will always be ~1995 for me, and I can attest that life was just as robust a proposition in 1965 as it will be in 2015. Civilization would handily survive the removal of the Internet. The impact might be similar to the abolition of cable TV forcing a return to on-air broadcasting, etc.: temporarily highly inconvenient but nowhere near fatal...

I do want to say my Peace as I am a very big hater of the MAFIAA but it seems like I getr Banned from here as a Troll.I love Ars but I am hating this Troll Banning probably all due to my MAFIAA Hate.I just got off a Ban on 6/2 and I am not a Troll.I am a real person "Jordan Kratz" and goreproductions is a real Website with my name, and I am also the next to oldest Punk Rocker in Maine.I am 57 and have been a Member of the Punk Community since 1976.And yes I so hate the MAFIAA and all the greed and control they stand for.I was Banned for "Trolling the Front Page" whatever that even means.I should make a Note and look back here to see if I actually get an explanation as to what that thing even means.

Hey I like trolling "the man" just as much as anyone else, but this is Ars not TF so I cannot express my hate of stupid laws that invade privacy like I do on TF.

“Today it’s not possible to cut off someone’s Internet access,” said Fleur Pellerin, France’s digital minister. He spoke at a press event (Google Translate) in Sweden last week, confirming that at least this part of the law would go away. “It’s like cutting off someone’s water.”

While I agree with the notion that cutting off someone's Internet connection is a very lame remedy almost guaranteed not to work (since there are so many obvious ways to get around it), equating Internet access to the body's need for water is rather idiotic--go without water for ~3 days and expire, go without Internet access for three days and...nothing--except maybe reading more books, watching movies and having more interaction with one's immediate environment, possibly. The year of the "Internet boom" will always be ~1995 for me, and I can attest that life was just as robust a proposition in 1965 as it will be in 2015. Civilization would handily survive the removal of the Internet. The impact might be similar to the abolition of cable TV forcing a return to on-air broadcasting, etc.: temporarily highly inconvenient but nowhere near fatal...

While not necessary from a strict survival standpoint (I don't remember Bear Grylls ever squeezing elephant dung to extract wifi bandwidth) it has nonetheless become part of our lives.

Pandora's Box has been opened, and it unleashed the Pandora app upon us.

“Today it’s not possible to cut off someone’s Internet access,” said Fleur Pellerin, France’s digital minister. He spoke at a press event (Google Translate) in Sweden last week, confirming that at least this part of the law would go away. “It’s like cutting off someone’s water.”

While I agree with the notion that cutting off someone's Internet connection is a very lame remedy almost guaranteed not to work (since there are so many obvious ways to get around it), equating Internet access to the body's need for water is rather idiotic--go without water for ~3 days and expire, go without Internet access for three days and...nothing--except maybe reading more books, watching movies and having more interaction with one's immediate environment, possibly. The year of the "Internet boom" will always be ~1995 for me, and I can attest that life was just as robust a proposition in 1965 as it will be in 2015. Civilization would handily survive the removal of the Internet. The impact might be similar to the abolition of cable TV forcing a return to on-air broadcasting, etc.: temporarily highly inconvenient but nowhere near fatal...

Having a supply of running water to your home isn't really necessary for life either since you could get your water from a well, standpipe, river, etc. He's saying that internet has basically become such an important part of modern life that not having it is often a serious impediment just like not having a plumbed water supply or mains electricity is a major impediment, even if it's quite possible to live without it.

Last year, a 40-year-old Frenchman paid €150 ($194) for failing to secure his Internet (presumably Wi-Fi) connection and for ignoring the three warnings sent by the Hadopi agency.

I missed that article the first time around. It's worth the read. From what I gather his 3rd warming must have been for ignoring the 1st & 2nd warnings by disconnecting his internet connection to deal with the problem. He wasn't computer literate at all, and his ex-wife downloaded 2 songs on his network. It's a shame that people who "subscribe" to the internet through a ISP can be held responsible for it as if it were their own "private property."

I do want to say my Peace as I am a very big hater of the MAFIAA but it seems like I getr Banned from here as a Troll.I love Ars but I am hating this Troll Banning probably all due to my MAFIAA Hate.I just got off a Ban on 6/2 and I am not a Troll.I am a real person "Jordan Kratz" and goreproductions is a real Website with my name, and I am also the next to oldest Punk Rocker in Maine.I am 57 and have been a Member of the Punk Community since 1976.And yes I so hate the MAFIAA and all the greed and control they stand for.I was Banned for "Trolling the Front Page" whatever that even means.I should make a Note and look back here to see if I actually get an explanation as to what that thing even means.

Hey I like trolling "the man" just as much as anyone else, but this is Ars not TF so I cannot express my hate of stupid laws that invade privacy like I do on TF.

-Andrew Lee

After reading my name I know you get it now.

At this point on this Site I am going to not Comment much at all.Censorship is not a cool thing to me at all.I am in no mood to be Banned again for something I did which these people never explain.Doesn't matter at all to me.Even my original Post on this thread has now disappeared and is Moderated.Tells me to click the same thing I did before twice.So at this point I am here...............maybe for good or maybe for a short time.We will see.I do know this I am a US Citizen and I am supposed to have some kind of 1st Amendment Freedom.

At this point on this Site I am going to not Comment much at all.Censorship is not a cool thing to me at all.I am in no mood to be Banned again for something I did which these people never explain.

Do you see the text in the yellow box on your moderated post? That's your explanation. How much clearer do you need it to be? Questions/comments regarding moderation must be directed to the mods team, not posted in-thread (and especially not posted in-thread when the comments refer to moderation in some other, completely different thread). At the top right of every page on this forum there's a "Contact Moderators" link for you to do just that. Feel free to make use of it.

You came into this thread - a thread about internet access policies in France - solely to bitch about being moderated/banned elsewhere. This isn't your personal pity circle where you get to moan about perceived wrongs committed against you. It's a thread to discuss the topic presented in the original post. If you carry on with this off-topic sniping stuff then yes, you'll get moderated and yes, you might get banned. And that'll be entirely your own fault.

Quote:

I do know this I am a US Citizen and I am supposed to have some kind of 1st Amendment Freedom.

The First Amendment protects you from government restriction of speech; a private organization like Ars is free to restrict forum members' posts however it likes.

If you're going to cite the importance of your Constitutional rights, at least take five minutes to comprehend what they are.

Don't get me wrong, I like Pierre Lescure just as much as the next guy, and he is the kind of guy involved in actual cultural activities, as opposed to being an executive in a media incumbent. That being said, his proposals are deeply rooted in a media broadcast perspective with jacobin (centralized) regulation, which is not what the Internet is like at all, both technically and culturally.

For instance, I cannot fathom what business the CSA would have enforcing anything related to the Internet. The CSA's main role is to oversee broadcast media (radio and TV), kind of like what the FCC does over non-cable TV (no expletive rules, thankfully), except it is its only role, the CSA has never dealt with telecom, even less digital networks.

The same way, I wonder in what name would smartphones and the like be taxed, other than "because we can" "and "culture! That's why!"

That being said, I am on the record as supporting some sort of graduated response and x strikes system, provided it has a proper judicial authority; though I don't offer any opinion as to whether internet cutoff should be a potential penalty.

P.S.: besides the gender of poor Ms. Pellerin, I would like Ars editors to make sure to at least have links to the original version of foreign language links, on top of the Google Translate ones: some of us do not trust these translations, or read these languages quite well; we can get to the original page from the translated one, but it's a pain to get rid of the Google Translate bar, and furthermore Google Translate is banned in some workplaces.